He shoots his own argument down by saying that since 1989 it was a permissive path for walkers not bikes
Therefore the landowner has acquiesced to over twenty years of use without permission, and by rights cyclists can claim for a Bridleway or RB
Is that the case? I thought that only applied to unchallenged non-permitted routes, and that giving permissive rights was a way of specifically excluding claims under the 20-year rule?
But you’re much better versed in this stuff than me – please educate me 🙂 Is it because the permission was only for walkers, so cycle use IS unchallenged non-permitted use?
I’ve only ridden it since 1998 unfortunately, but if we can make a 20-year claim then I’ll raise it with Rushmoor Cycle Forum – there will definitely be plenty of people who can vouch for it – although I don’t know what constitutes evidence in these cases.